Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Actually, I started the thread long ago to review your book I had heard so much about.

After the thread had gone on forever and people started talking about sex in Star Trek, I mentioned some of my character preferences.

I didn't start the thread to be psychoanalyzed though if you have any questions in that regard I'm willing to answer them.

Incidentally, about four years ago, I started a thread similiar to this in The Neutral Zone and got a whole load of POSITIVE responses from people (male and female) who shared my opinions regarding working with women.

So I do not like being around women aside from my wife, daughter, and sisters.

OK, buddy, this is not the same as "I don't like working with women", which is offensive enough it and of itself.

You just said "I do not like being around women." Period. So you're misogynistic.

And I hope that someday, when your daughter comes to you and complains because some asshole told her she's not worth being around because she's female, or because some asshole told her he won't hire her for a job she's qualified for because she's female and he doesn't like working with women, you remember that you're one of the assholes who thinks it's OK to treat her that way.

Take away the ship and technology of Star Trek and the show becomes barely recognizable.

Take away the ship, and you have Deep Space Nine.
Take away the ship and tech, and you have eps like "The City on the Edge of Forever" and "Far Beyond the Stars" -- some of the most popular episodes ever, where the SF trappings are only there to provide the opening into very human character stories.

Incidentally, about four years ago, I started a thread similiar to this in The Neutral Zone and got a whole load of POSITIVE responses from people (male and female) who shared my opinions regarding working with women.

So though in the minority, I'm certainly not alone.

Well, if you post in a forum that's specifically dedicated to discussing "contentious issues," it's naturally going to draw in a disproportionate number of people who want to advocate controversial or intolerant positions. And no online BBS is ever going to be a large or random enough sample to be statistically significant at showing anything.

And the fact that you don't find those people in the boards that are actually about Star Trek is telling. Star Trek is a show that was specifically designed to counter attitudes like that.

Take away the ship and technology of Star Trek and the show becomes barely recognizable.

Take away the ship, and you have Deep Space Nine.
Take away the ship and tech, and you have eps like "The City on the Edge of Forever" and "Far Beyond the Stars" -- some of the most popular episodes ever, where the SF trappings are only there to provide the opening into very human character stories.

Oh there's plenty need to be insulting at this point, since you were insulting first, by quite a lot.

Dayton3 wrote:

Where is that IDIC stuff from Star Trek we keep hearing about?

You have a misconception about what diversity and acceptance means. Diversity and tolerance of differences is not tolerance of intolerance. It is not considered diverse to be accepting of, say the KKK. Since they stand in stark contrast to what diversity is trying to promote. So your misogyny (which is what you have described here) is also not apart of that.

__________________
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. (Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-68))

All male organizations tend to function better than ones that mix males and females. Females are a major distraction and a source of tension for males. Males are far, far easier to control and command where not females are present.

Aw jeez.

You know, as a woman, this kind of attitude pisses me off. And it's just as annoying to hear it from an American as to hear it from an extremist who thinks that women should be covered from head to toe because she might "tempt" a weak man. Women end up being the victims of discrimination because of insecure twits who can't interact with them properly or can't control their raging hormones or whatever.

If some men can't control themselves around women, perhaps THEY should not be in the service (or around the women,) instead of denying women the opportunities that the service gives to them.

Also - Sex is is a normal part of life, Dayton3, as is the mixing of the sexes. I will grant that shows like Enterprise approached it the wrong way, going for the immature titillation angle as opposed to showing a mature relationship between a couple.

Star Trek stories are ENRICHED by character development. Battles and fights and ships blowing up might add interest to a story, but it's how people react to things, how they grow and develop or how they learn from mistakes (those they make or those of others,) that makes a story interesting.

Folks, I'm NOT HAPPY with anyone in this thread. Dayton3 may have radical opinions that no one in this thread appears to agree with and that's fine and good, but I don't like some of the responses he has received in this thread. Among others (and I'm sure I've missed some):

Trent Roman wrote:

Dayton3 wrote:

Because I'm the kind of person that looks at EVERYTHING in life and says to myself "I could do that better".

I suggest you start with a mirror.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Trent Roman wrote:

I just checked Misc., and there doesn't appear to be a 'misogyny as family tradition' thread yet. Run off and start one. (...with all due apologies to the folk is Misc.)

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

William Leisner wrote:

Dayton3 wrote:

But shouldn't all this stuff be in another thread somewhere?

No. It really should not.

Where it should be is in your psychiatric file.

Amy Sisson wrote:

Dayton3 wrote:

So I do not like being around women aside from my wife, daughter, and sisters.

OK, buddy, this is not the same as "I don't like working with women", which is offensive enough it and of itself.

You just said "I do not like being around women." Period. So you're misogynistic.

And I hope that someday, when your daughter comes to you and complains because some asshole told her she's not worth being around because she's female, or because some asshole told her he won't hire her for a job she's qualified for because she's female and he doesn't like working with women, you remember that you're one of the assholes who thinks it's OK to treat her that way.

Christopher wrote:

Daddy Todd wrote:

You guys, lay off Dayton3. He's hetero; says so himself.

I, on the other hand, am gay, and I'm BEGGING you to quit trying to lump him in with us non-hets.

I don't think anyone here sincerely thinks he's gay -- just that it's fun to insinuate that he is because it's bound to irk him.

JD wrote:

Wow, can you say "Superiority Complex"?

Turtletrekker wrote:

Murder, child molestation and rape are the three lowest forms of human behavior. Bigotry is the fourth.

Amy and Christopher, I'm especially not happy with your posts (Amy, I understand you're pissed and why you're pissed, but there's a better way of going about it).

Dayton3, you've also been insulting in this thread, but to a lower degree. You've had one trolling warning in this forum not so long ago, so think before you post.

This thread has gone far, far off topic. Let's get back to reviewing Greater than the Sum. I or Rosalind will warn for anything that's like the above if this persists. I'm closing this thread for now to make sure everyone reads this post. I will reopen it in the morning.

__________________
"Eccleston was a tiger and Tennant was, well, Tigger. Smith [is] an uncoordinated housecat who pretends that he meant to do that after falling off a piece of furniture." - Lynne M. Thomas

Upon further deliberation, Rosalind and I have decided to keep the thread closed, but anyone is welcome to start a new thread about Greater than the Sum on a clean slate.

__________________
"Eccleston was a tiger and Tennant was, well, Tigger. Smith [is] an uncoordinated housecat who pretends that he meant to do that after falling off a piece of furniture." - Lynne M. Thomas